Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /usr/home/web/users/a0028728/html/blog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 83

These days, there is a lot of talk about globalization, multicultural society, and diversity. Very often the point is made that diversity is strengthening a culture, or society. But is this view correct? The answer is yes and no.
 
Often indeed, diversity has yielded a certain cultural strength – New York City, San Francisco, Tokyo, Barcelona can be cited as good examples. Diversity leads to strength, when elements of different character, but of a common root, are allowed to blossom. Japanese cultures thrives, for instance, on the concept that extremes can co-exist and strengthen each other. Diverse cultures are fascinating, attractive, exciting. They offer what people want: the freedom to choose one’s own genuine lifeform. Largely monochromatic cultures, such as Singapur for instance, appear dull, authoritarian and intellectually somewhat stifling.

Nobody wants to live in Saudi Arabia.

Citizens of New York may have different ethnic or cultural backgrounds but see themselves as New Yorkers. Recently, a lady of Iranian descent was  elected beauty queen in my native conservative Bavaria – she’s perfectly speaking the local dialect, never mind about the rest.  As long as there is a common denominator amongst a diverse population, diversity means strength. A common denominator may be culture, language, dialect, dress, ethnicity, history, faith, Weltanschauung, Law.
 
What happens if a common denominator is lacking? In this case trouble looms ahead. That’s when cars are burning in dirty French suburbs, and liberal filmmakers are murdered in Amsterdam. The lack of an intrinsic common root, or consensus, leads to parallel societies, or ghettos.
 
In a parallel society, the other part is ignored, if not plainly rejected. in the ghetto, the extremist always shines as a defender or hero of local values, though he or she may be a complete nut. Ghetto leaders work against the host society, they thrive like a parasite plant off the host society’s odds and general decay and corruption. 

Societies that are tolerant of this kind of ghetto culture are doing wrong. Keeping one’s eyes shut won’t solve the problem. Ignoring each other may work for a while, but can and will lead to social clashes sooner or later – at the next economic downturn, to be precise. It may and will erupt violently.
 
In world’s history, the most tragic example is certainly the failed (ultimate) integration of Jews into German mainstream culture. Although both sides had gone a very long way toward a permanent platform of common thought and culture, one catastrophic event (WW I and the economic disasters thereafter) was sufficient to wipe out hundreds of years of cultural synopsis, and ultimately created the landscape that allowed the Holocaust to materialize. It could happen, because a common cultural platform had only materialized at the level of the elites, whilst the majority uneducated lower class rabble was left cut-out of material and cultural goodies, and remained prone to anti-Semitic feelings.

There are many other examples, too. In SE Asia, the Chinese overseas minority is viewed with great suspicion, given their financial strength, self-centered cultural focus, and endowed with an often ruthless, and uncompassionate business style. They are seen as a hated, yet necessary element of society. A predator, just waiting to take over the land.
Currently, the most challenging subject seems to the integration of Muslim believers into the mainstream of western culture. Integration means that both sides cede part of their territory, and move toward the other position, in fair amounts given in respect to number and standing within the host societies.
 
Neither side may reject the other, nor expect the other of fully embracing ‘alien’ values. There can only be one common Law, and, as long as the host country’s population continues to believe and act in known ways, it won’t be halal.
 
This process will be a painful one for Muslims living in Christian or liberal host countries. The followers of Islam must abandon absolutist statements, such as owning the only way to God. It falls short of revising the ‘source code’ of this religion. Yet, the bottom line is: there is no choice. Parallel societies are and have been a recipe for disaster. Adherence to absolutist ideas means, ultimately, acceptance of bloodshed.

Finding a common platform might not only be a problem but a tremendeous opportunity in disguise: A possibility to pose society onto a platform of rational thought, law, ecology and common sense. But what are the chances to succeed? I’m a little pessimistic, when looking at the increasing rejection of rational values in favor of religious ideas.
Citing Murphy’s Law ‘what can happen will happen,’ a tremendous effort is needed on both sides to work on a truly common and reliable platform of co-existence, and beliefs cannot and may not remain taboo. What will happen, if these efforts remain fruitless? The answer is: mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Just look, what happened to Yugoslavia! A clash of culture will see no winners. Should the autochthonous (‘western’) culture prevail in a ‘clash of cultures,’ freedom might be preserved, but our dignity will be lost. Should there be a globally fanatic Islam, both dignity and freedom will be lost.

There is no choice.  
© 2007 by Franz L Kessler